Skip to main content

Table 3 The three most common types of no-harm incidents and their most common potential contributing causes

From: Identifying no-harm incidents in home healthcare: a cohort study using trigger tool methodology

Types of no-harm incidentsPotential contributing causesNumber
Fall without harm (n = 127, 40.6% of all no-harm incidents)Nursing care – delayed, erroneous, omitted, incomplete66
Observation – delayed, erroneous, omitted, incomplete48
Follow-up of care/treatment – delayed, erroneous, omitted, incomplete36
Not apparent from record29
Routines/guidelines – lacking, deficient, have not been observed25
Collaboration/continuity – deficiencies within the unit23
Treatment – delayed, erroneous, omitted, incomplete16
Communication/information – deficiencies in relation to patient/relatives16
Communication/information – deficiencies between different care providers16
Deficiencies in medication management (n = 66, 21.1% of all no-harm incidents)Treatment – delayed, erroneous, omitted, incomplete63
Performance of task – deficient46
Medication – distribution – delayed, erroneous, omitted, incomplete46
Routines/guidelines – lacking, deficient, have not been observed43
Communication/information – deficiencies between different care providers31
Follow-up of care/treatment– delayed, erroneous, omitted, incomplete25
Moderate pain (n = 24, 7.7% of all no-harm incidents)Treatment – delayed, erroneous, omitted, incomplete15
Nursing care – delayed, erroneous, omitted, incomplete10
Diagnostics/examination – delayed, erroneous, omitted, incomplete7
Medication – prescription – delayed, erroneous, omitted, incomplete7
Follow-up of care/treatment– delayed, erroneous, omitted, incomplete7
 Observation – delayed, erroneous, omitted, incomplete7
  1. The number of potential contributing causes is higher than the number of no-harm incidents because the reviewers were allowed to choose more than one alternative for each no-harm incident